Appeal No. 2005-0489 Page 6
Application No. 10/144,987
The applicant argues, and we agree, that Rohrbaugh relies in part on the
flexibility of the halyard to handle wind pressure and, thus, would not have suggested
mounting a flag, even via a lower mounting which permits movement up and down in
the direction of the axis of elongation of the flag pole, directly to the flagpole (or flag
holder) of Fisher, rather than to a halyard. Moreover, in light of Rohrbaugh’s expressed
objective to size the ring 10 with a materially greater diameter than that of the halyard
so that it is free to slide loosely up and down on the halyard and also free to move
transversely relatively to the halyard to take up wind pressure, Rohrbaugh cannot
reasonably be considered to teach or suggest a “lower mounting substantially
precluding said lower fitting from lateral movement with respect to said axis of
elongation, such lateral movement being limited by slight spacing between the lower
mounting and said body, said slight spacing provided solely to facilitate said free
movement” as called for in claim 28. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 28 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Rohrbaugh.
The examiner’s application of Hall and Dobbins in rejecting the dependent claims
provides no cure for the deficiency of the combination of Fisher and Rohrbaugh
discussed above. We therefore also cannot sustain the rejections of claims 29 and 31
as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Rohrbaugh and Hall and claims 30 and 32
as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Rohrbaugh and Dobbins.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007